Important Point: While High Courts do not have any authority, power or jurisdiction to question the approach of the Committee in filing Appeals nor can it doubt the mandate of the Constitution of India and which allows the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to entertain any of their requests or proceedings.

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges an order dated 7th January, 2017 whereby the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane has invalidated his tribe claim.

3. The Petitioner has on the basis of a tribe certificate issued to him by the Competent Authority, sought an employment and opportunity to serve Food Corporation of India. The Food Corporation of India, through its Assistant General Manager (personnel) is impleaded as a Respondent, because that authority employed the Petitioner on 13th January, 1976. The Petitioner retired on superannuation on 31st July, 2014.

4. The Petitioner was appointed as a Peon in this Respondent No.4 Corporation in open category. The Petitioner says that his service record was blemishless and that is why he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-III on 15th December, 1979 again in open category. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II on 9th February, 2001. This was against an open post.

5. However, his promotion to Assistant Grade-I was under a reserved category and that promotion order is dated 3rd November, 2008. The Petitioner then was promoted to the post of Manager (Depot) on 8th November, 2012 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st July, 2014. However and curiously, the 4th Respondent Corporation withheld his Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc for non-furnishing of a caste validity certificate.

6. It is upon a reference made by 4th Respondent Corporation to the 2nd Respondent Committee for verification of his tribe certificate and claim of belonging to Thakar Scheduled Tribe that the Petitioner appeared before the Committee. During the course of the proceedings, he relied upon the Tribe Validity Certificates issued to his relatives from the paternal side. The Tribe Validity Certificate issued to his nephew and niece (who are the sons and daughter of his real brothers and from a common ancestor) were relied upon. However, the Committee has discarded that and made its own enquiry and arrived at a conclusion that those claiming to be Thakars and residing in Sindhudurg District have never been able to substantiate and prove their claim as belonging to the Schedule Tribe. They tried to grab and obtain the benefits for such scheduled tribe by producing caste certificates but have no proof of their affinity nor have they any materials to establish and prove that they are aware of the traits, practices, customs, rituals etc of Thakar Community. They have also not been able to satisfy the Committee on the points framed by it for its consideration.

7. Mr. Mendadkar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has raised one contention and based on which we called upon him to file an additional affidavit. Mr Mendadkar's contention is that once in the family, the relatives from the paternal side have been issued a caste/Tribe validity certificate way back on 11th June, 2002 and 28th February, 2003, then, the Petitioner's claim could not have been rejected discarding this strong and reliable piece of evidence. This evidence is unimpeachable for the simple reason that neither any steps have been taken by the Competent Authority to challenge the correctness of this Tribe Validity Certificate issued to the blood relatives nor the Committee in the present case has come to a conclusion that they are vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation. In such circumstances relying upon an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.12805 of 2016 decided on 11th January, 2017, Mr. Mendadkar would submit that this Writ Petition should succeed.

8. The said order dated 11th January, 2017 reads as under:-

“(1) We have heard both sides. We have perused the entire record including the affidavit filed in reply. In paragraph 10 of this affidavit in reply the Committee seeks to ju